The rise of AI technologies has set off what feels like a wild west of new developments, and when it pertains to the media and journalism, the stakes couldn't be higher. Recently Perplexity AI, known for its AI-assisted search engine, announced it would be sharing revenue with publishers after facing accusations of plagiarism. This move is seen as transformational, but it also surfaces significant questions about fairness, especially for smaller publishers.
Perplexity AI hit the ground running when it launched its "Publishers Program" on July 30, 2024. The program was unveiled after reports from major media entities, including Forbes and Wired, accused Perplexity of using their content without permission or acknowledgment. These accusations highlighted the complicated, often contentious relationship between AI companies and traditional media outlets. The media, which largely relies on original reporting for its credibility, was suddenly competing with AI platforms capable of summarizing or reproducing news content at astonishing speeds.
Dmitry Shevelenko, Perplexity's chief business officer, stated, "This is not just about boosting profits. We believe there needs to be a vibrant business model for journalism to thrive moving forward." The suggestion here is clear: AI technologies can benefit from the content published by traditional outlets, and conversely, these outlets can benefit from the increased exposure they might receive through AI tools. With this introduction of revenue sharing, Perplexity aims to align its success with the success of news publishers. How this will play out remains to be seen.
Traditionally, search engines and content aggregators have profited from providing users access to media reports. Yet, these platforms have often failed to compensate the original creators of the content—leading some publishers to feel increasingly aggrieved. Forbes, for example, accused Perplexity of reproducing its content concerning former Google CEO, Eric Schmidt. Randall Lane, Forbes' chief content officer, expressed frustration stating, "Perplexity had taken our work without our permission and integrated it across multiple platforms as if it were its own." This blatant oversight has made many reconsider their relationships with AI companies.
The new program, which initially includes six publishers—Time, Fortune, Der Spiegel, Entrepreneur, The Texas Tribune, and Automattic—aims to begin rectifying these past grievances. The revenue-sharing arrangement stipulates these partners will receive compensation whenever their content is cited within Perplexity’s generated search results. While Shevelenko did not detail the exact revenue splits, he did confirm they would be at least double-digit percentages, offering hope for financially strained newsrooms.
This innovation contrasts sharply with how traditional search engines like Google operate, often leaving content creators without any financial reward. While Google displays links to articles and snippets fragmentarily, Perplexity promises to share revenue whenever its users link directly to those articles. This ensures publishers get compensated whenever they contribute valuable content, which could lead to new revenue streams for struggling news organizations.
For smaller publishers and nonprofit news organizations, this development enters uncharted waters. Leaders from The Texas Tribune, one of the few nonprofits partnered with Perplexity, expressed optimism. Sonal Shah, the CEO, remarked, "The revenue-sharing piece is something we have never had before, and it opens doors for financial sustainability. Our journalism may be free, but it's certainly not free to produce." This recognition is key, as small newsrooms have faced significant financial obstacles, especially during the last few years when advertising revenue has dwindled.
The conversation surrounding AI's impact on journalism isn't only about compensation. It's also about how traditional news outlets navigate the intricacies of digital transformation without losing their core values. Small publishers, like the Texas Tribune, not only require financial rewards for their content but also long for recognition and protection of their intellectual properties to combat the risks associated with AI-generated content. Shevelenko acknowledged these challenges, indicating there’s much room for improvement. "We need to be more clear about how we are different from the competition and how we prioritize the partnerships we create," he said.
While the partnership announcements may seem like good news for publishers itching for new revenue streams, many media organizations remain skeptical. Concerns linger about how effective the revenue share will be at actually benefiting users. Shevelenko's positive outlook notwithstanding, it’s important to understand this is being launched amid mistrust, and the long-term impact remains to be seen.
The past couple of months have seen serious allegations against Perplexity, primarily revolving around its scraping practices and multiple copyright infringement accusations. Reports indicated the company allegedly did not respect the standard protocols guiding digital content scraping and was accused of evading the Robots Exclusion Protocol (a kind of digital sign telling crawlers what to ignore). This kind of disrespect for guidelines creates distrust between the traditional media and AI companies, severely undermining the possibility of building meaningful partnerships.
Wired's investigation highlighted the depth of these concerns as Perplexity was said to have crawled several Condé Nast owned domains without permission, prompting cease-and-desist letters. Shadowed by the cloud of theft, the announcement of the revenue-sharing program carries the risk of appearing reactive rather than genuinely pro-industry. Some could argue this was merely an attempt to restore goodwill after particularly bad press.
The environment under which these partnerships are being formed is complex. Not all publishing organizations are rushing to work with AI technologies. Some prefer to sue instead. For example, The Intercept has been forthright about its intention to seek legal recourse against AI-generated platforms like OpenAI over alleged copyright infringing practices. Some skepticism arises from how tech companies have approached partnerships. OpenAI has struck content deals with major players, such as Time and News Corp, creating questions about what this means for smaller players or nonprofit media users.
Shah from The Texas Tribune echoed these sentiments. There’s considerable apprehension among smaller publishings about whether these sorts of arrangements even exist for them. What's clear is there's no one-size-fits-all solution. The complicity of individual publishers will depend on how they assess the specific values provided by partnerships with AI companies like Perplexity versus current methods of technology engagement.
The launch of the revenue-sharing model speaks volumes about the growing pains AI companies are experiencing as they aim to collaborate with traditional media. Whether such strategies lead to successful and equitable partnerships remains unknown, but what’s critical now is the dialogue between both sides. Publishers must feel empowered to negotiate their stakes, and AI firms have to comprehend prevention strategies for long-term sustainability. Only then can they collectively carve out solutions suited to the contemporary media universe.
With the stakes so high, both AI startups and media publishers need to navigate this new frontier carefully, ensuring technologies do not merely hollow out traditional media or exploit its contents, but instead cultivate relationships fostering authenticity and innovation. Amid the chatter about AI, journalism holds its ground, reminding stakeholders why credible storytelling—whether generated by humans or machines—still matters.